Court of Appeal

Published April 30, 2008

B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets)

The source and origin of assets should be taken into account in considering ancillary relief since the primary objectives were fairness and an absence of discrimination between the parties.

The Court of Appeal (Sir Mark Potter, President, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Hughes) so held on March 19, 2008, when allowing the wife’s appeal, on the ground that she brought more assets into the marriage, against the order of Judge Williams at Kingston upon Thames County Court on April 27, 2007, upholding the district judge’s equal division of assets after a 12-year marriage.

LORD JUSTICE HUGHES said that the case required the application of well understood principles to its own unusual facts.

The entirety of the assets had been pre-owned by the wife, a substantial period had been spent living entirely upon those assets and the car-wash business, in which the husband was working, generated a sizeable income but with no significant capital value except in the premises which had been provided by the wife alone.

In all cases the essential search was for fairness. Desirable as a clean break would be it could not be achieved here at the same time as dividing the assets equally.

To achieve fairness, the orders below would be set aside and appropriate orders substituted to grant the wife a larger proportion of capital while permitting the husband to continue in sole occupation of the premises for the purposes of his business until such time as it should be sold and the proceeds divided equally.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• More pressure on UBS as America holds banker
• Harry Potter author's victory in privacy battle
• Late delivery gets Flintoff off charge